Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Educational disadvantage.

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    There are scolarships specifically for girls to entice them into science/engineering subjects in college.


    Personally I think they're going completely the wrong way about it, they need to attract better looking guys and then the girls will follow :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭Bijoux


    What about the subjects that are traditionally male-dominated?

    I study computer science, and there are very few women studying CS. Engineering is desperately short on women too, especially in electrical and mechanical engineering. There aren't many women who study physics either.

    I'm currently studying physics in college...I was in an all girl secondary school, where there were about 120 girls in every year...about 7 years ago, only 4 people in my school took physics....when I did my leaving cert (2007), there were sixteen girls in my physics class....apparently the year after I left they had two physics classes, so it seems to be getting more popular!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    There was very much an educational disadvantage in my school. As far as teachers went, we either had the experienced teachers but who couldn't control a class and had a poor system of teaching or A LOT of green teachers sent to us who really had no system of teaching established yet. Poor facilities also was a problem.

    Basically anyone who did well in the LC were the ones that could teach themselves. If you were a student who had potential but needed guidance, you were screwed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭Monkey61


    I found in my school anyway (though I imagine it's prevalent in a lot of countryside non-privateschools) that academic achievement was never pushed as much as it should have been. It is very difficult to be clever and have to sit through classes with people that aren't at the same level and to never be pushed to be better cos "aren't you doing grand as you are."

    Classes were obviously geared towards those with average ability, those that were below average got special classes, those that were above did not. I think I missed out on an awful lot that would have been available to those in fee paying schools.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    There are scolarships specifically for girls to entice them into science/engineering subjects in college
    More sexist rubbish.

    Where are the scholarships for men to take up medicine, teaching or nursing?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    More sexist rubbish.

    Where are the scholarships for men to take up medicine, teaching or nursing?

    I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    without trying to stir things up, IMO anyone who thinks that the CAO system is biased towards women doesnt understand it at all and/or is just tryin to cause trouble
    or won't pass the l/cert!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 753 ✭✭✭Semele


    I'm from Northern Ireland and I've been to both comprehensive and grammar schools. I went to the local high school when I was 11 as my mother worked there as a TA, so it was convenient, and felt I was too young to make the much longer journey to the grammar school in the next town every day.

    I've seen the best and worst of both:

    The high school had limited resources and limited subject choices for GCSE. However I was easily one of the best students throughout school and we were encouraged by the teachers far more than were others- to the extent of having far more informal and relaxed relationships with them in the classroom than the lower-level classes. I was on first name terms with many of my teachers and could get away with slagging that probably would have got others suspended. I was in the (1) higher level class for our GCSE years- the rest of the classes were middle level- and we were assigned the best teachers for every subject. The school might not have been the best but our class was referred to by all teachers (i kid you not) as "la creme de la creme". Obviously I loved it at the time since we were treated like royalty, however it made me very lazy and complacent about work.

    For my A-levels I moved to the school I could have gone to at 11 and found it an entirely different story. Without sounding like a tw*t, I was used to getting top results with no effort in my old school- here I had to actually work for it as the standard as a whole was much higher. Saying that though, the standard varied far more as it was assumed that at that level we would all be of equal ability- which was not the case. I still think that there should have been some sort of streaming at A-level. I don't mean to sound elitist by that but the fact is that I didn't ever work in my 1st school because I didn't have to, and even now that we were being more intellectually challenged there were always enough slower people in the class to hold us back.

    I think I learned more in the second school in 2 years than in 5 at the first. Our first school had really high league table results- 1st in N.Ireland for a few years in a row around the time I was there, beating my 2nd school, but I later realised it did this by putting all effort into the maybe 30 of us that had the potential to do really well and counting on the fact that we would outweigh the dross that they just ignored.

    I think I'd be so much better off now in a system that took the best of both: I loved the challenge of the 2nd school but hated the fact that the class was so much bigger and of such mixed ability; and I loved the streaming of the 2nd school but not its attitude that we could do fine without being pushed- so we might as well all just sit down and have a chat!

    I have since been left with a crippling inability to force myself to study which has blighted my college years- where ability alone is not enough! One actually has to go to lectures and study and stuff it seems...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    taconnol wrote: »
    I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.
    The exact opposite actually. Women can do whatever they want but chose not to. Women keep men out of lots of high points courses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 863 ✭✭✭Mikel


    taconnol wrote: »
    I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.
    I think the reverse is true. The outperformance by girls relative to boys means means that the very high points courses (pharm, med, physio) are dominated by girls.
    Proper order some might say....... well if the situation was reversed etc etc.

    One interesting point about medicine though, if women come to dominate the ranks of graduating doctors, there could be other consequnces.
    A certain percentage will turn to childrearing at some point, which will reduce the time they work or they may leave the profession altogether.
    At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
    Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Bijoux wrote: »
    I'm currently studying physics in college...I was in an all girl secondary school, where there were about 120 girls in every year...about 7 years ago, only 4 people in my school took physics....when I did my leaving cert (2007), there were sixteen girls in my physics class....apparently the year after I left they had two physics classes, so it seems to be getting more popular!
    That's good to see that the hard sciences are becoming more popular in an all-girls school - I did my LC in 2002 and there were 8 of us in my year that did physics that year, 4 did it the year before that, and 6 did it the year after.
    At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
    Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly
    It's quite possible alright. Personally I think making medicine a graduate entry subject like it is in the US would be a good idea - yes it would mean it takes longer to qualify as a doctor, but it would mean that those who were really committed to it would go for it, plus it would mean that future doctors would have a broader range of life experience before they begin their medical training.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,175 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Mikel wrote: »
    One interesting point about medicine though, if women come to dominate the ranks of graduating doctors, there could be other consequnces.
    A certain percentage will turn to childrearing at some point, which will reduce the time they work or they may leave the profession altogether.
    At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
    Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly

    And should we not facilitate childrearing in all careers? To be honest I think the whole mindset about women in the workforce needs to change. If theres a shortfall we need to train more, end of story.

    Btw I read that article in the times too and thought it was a heap of sh1te.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Twee.


    Physics was quite unpopular in my year with only nine in the class. Stranger though was that history had just six of us!
    My school brought Technical Graphics in for TYs last year, thanks to a new male teacher. Hopefully they'll continue and maybe bring it in for Leaving Cert.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    Twee. wrote: »
    Physics was quite unpopular in my year with only nine in the class. Stranger though was that history had just six of us!
    My school brought Technical Graphics in for TYs last year, thanks to a new male teacher. Hopefully they'll continue and maybe bring it in for Leaving Cert.
    I think the got rid of it as a LC subject.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Twee.


    I think the got rid of it as a LC subject.

    Aw :( Well, maybe they'll bring in something as an alternative to Art, Home Ec and Music for the "other" subjects!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 863 ✭✭✭Mikel


    fits wrote: »
    And should we not facilitate childrearing in all careers? To be honest I think the whole mindset about women in the workforce needs to change
    Way to miss the point.
    Btw I read that article in the times too and thought it was a heap of sh1te.
    I'm not referring to any article in the Times, which is just as well seeing as you deconstructed it so succintly.:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭cuckoo


    Mikel wrote: »
    Way to miss the point.

    ?

    It had been stated in the thread that the gender imbalance entering medicine was a problem, as the female graduates might want to leave the workforce for a while to have children. Fits was saying that this isn't what should be seen as a problem - that the problem is with the system, not the doctors. Male doctors should also be allowed want to have careers that allow them to spend time with their families.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,175 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Mikel wrote: »
    Way to miss the point.

    I'm not referring to any article in the Times, which is just as well seeing as you deconstructed it so succintly.:rolleyes:

    I didnt miss any point.
    There was an article in the Times a few weeks ago about this very issue which caused quite a stir which is why I assumed you were talking about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭paperclip2


    .
    The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.


    I haven't read all the replies so if this has been answered already apologies. :D

    The CAO is a points based merit system, ie the higher your grade the higher your points and in you get to your course, be you male or female.

    If demand exceeds places a random lottery selection process is used among those who have the neccessary points.

    The points for any particular course is based on the demand for that course from the student body.

    Gender is never a bias in the selection process through CAO (although it can be as part of policy in individual instutes of higher learning).
    It can also be an issue at schools level, where girls are out-performing boys in many areas of the curriculum, but this isn't something that CAO can realisticaly be expected to address.
    Women can do whatever they want but chose not to. Women keep men out of lots of high points courses.

    This is a wider societal issue. Look at the number of stories here from girls who were actively discouraged from participating in courses at second level leading to careers in science and engineering. If you have spent five years doing languages and humanities then its unlikely you will have sufficient academic knowlege and self awareness to accurately assess your performance in a non-related field at third level. Hence girls tend to shy away from such areas leading to initiatives to encourage female particpation.

    Medicine is the most significant anomly in this regard and this has been principally due to the high status nature of this career. It attracts aspirational and ambitious learners, be they male or female. Since the number of places has always been regulated so stringently the natural result has been sky high points. Therefore those who can play the education game are duly rewarded. At present the educational system favours women. In previous generations it did not.
    (Additionally, entry to medicine will change in 2009 I think!)

    It is the nature of the curriculum at second level as well as issues such as male psycho-social development and traditional, narrow view teaching styles which restricit the ability of certain young male learners to achieve their potential within the current education system.

    Also there have been initiatives to attract men into more female dominated areas, e.g. http://www.maryhanafin.ie/january24.htm

    At present its not the evil girls banding together to keep the lads out of particular courses. Its an educational system in need of an over-haul in regard to how it approaches the whole area of learning assessment. It is my personal belief that the 'one size fits all' mentality of the LC needs to change. :)

    Have soap-box! Will travel!! :o Sorry for banging on so long!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,175 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Good post paperclip.

    I have to say while the current system may favour a certain type of student who is often female (although I would not consider myself to have been one of those students). I cannot see how any changes to the curriculum/assessment/teaching styles are going to favour boys.
    I dont see why they should either. Things always even out when people get older (or even favour men rather than women).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The exact opposite actually. Women can do whatever they want but chose not to. Women keep men out of lots of high points courses.

    I had that same old shíte spouted at me when I was in college.
    I was told by one of my course lecturers that I should not be doing electronic engineering.

    I was taking up a place a young man needed to get a qualification which would get him a good job to provide for his family and that I would waste mine when I settled down and had children and that most girls went to college to get their Mrs and should only be allowed to do arts courses and not be taking up places on BEng courses.

    Where the truth of the matter was right out of college and until I had to give up work due to a back injury sustained while pregnant I earned the higher wage in the house hold and for a period of time was the sole earner with my
    'stolen' qualification.

    As for the rubbish about men not being allowed to be stay at home dads that is utter clap trap when I was 10 ( and for the rest of my childhood ) my dad stayed at home and my Mam worked, he went back to work when when all us kids were grown up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,175 ✭✭✭✭fits


    I was reared by my Dad too.

    Which college was that Thaed? I'm very surprised to hear that (studied engineering myself)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭A_M101


    I must be really lucky.

    In school I was never pushed in any direction and was able to freely choose to do Applied Maths, higher Maths, Physics etc without any pressure if I wanted. We had two higher Maths classes out of a total of five and a full physics class and I did Applied Maths after school, which is fair enough as it's a minority subject country wide.

    Then I went to college to study engineering and have never felt that I've been treated one bit differently to the lads in the class * .

    * one lecturer offers gloves to the girls to touch the icky, oily engines :rolleyes: but that's just kind of sweet!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭paperclip2


    fits wrote: »
    Good post paperclip.

    I have to say while the current system may favour a certain type of student who is often female (although I would not consider myself to have been one of those students). I cannot see how any changes to the curriculum/assessment/teaching styles are going to favour boys.
    I dont see why they should either. Things always even out when people get older (or even favour men rather than women).

    Cheers fits!

    Theres a good bit of research out there on this and its pretty absorbing reading if you like that sort of thing. :confused:

    Two good ones are:

    Toni Owens: Men on the Move, A study of Barriers to Male Participation in Education and Training.

    Veronica McGiveney: Excluded Men, Men who are missing from education and training.

    And I'll shut up now!

    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    At present the educational system favours women.

    Yep. I'm fairly aware of all the reasons as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    fits wrote: »
    I was reared by my Dad too.

    Which college was that Thaed? I'm very surprised to hear that (studied engineering myself)

    Dundalk, it was still an R.T.C. at the time.

    The same lecturer accused me of trying to get one of the lads to do my soldering for me as I was letting him have the most use of the one soldering iron we were sharing. He tried to belittle me by demanding I come up to his bench and solder there so he could show the rest of the class how not to do it. It backfired on him as I have been soldering from the age of 12 ( my Dad tought me) and already had 3 city and guilds certs for electronics before I went to college. He could not fault the excerise which I had done in 5 mins which had been the task for the two hour lab session.


    We also had the head of dept try to get a female student to give up the course saying that it would be hard enough for her to get a job due to her gender but that the added fact she had epilepsy as far as he was concerned made her unemployable and said he would never dream of giving her a job.

    And people wondered why I ran for and became Women's Rights Officer in the Students Union the for the next year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,175 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Crikey! Thats unbelievable!

    I have to say I never encountered such treatment either at second level or third level. When in transition year the local IT had a programme (think it was national) called steps to engineering and lots of girls from my school took part.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭paperclip2


    Yep. I'm fairly aware of all the reasons as well.


    Really? Thats great. :)
    I wasn't sure, what with all the swipes at CAO and dem pesky girls what steal de places from dem hard wurkin lads!;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    paperclip2 wrote: »
    Really? Thats great. :)
    I wasn't sure, what with all the swipes at CAO and dem pesky girls what steal de places from dem hard wurkin lads!;)

    Thats the problem. The lads aren't hard working, they are up to mischief or playing too much sport. The graduate entry for medicine has sorted a lot of the CAO problems out I'll admit as at that stage I think men outperform women slightly with more firsts obtained.

    Thats fairly bad Thaedyal but I'm sure that sort of thing is dying out as the older fellows retire.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    More sexist rubbish.

    Yip I agree, I don't think we particularly need more women in science and engineering, we need more highly skilled people, be they men or women.

    Science and engineering courses tend not to be too high anyway, so as girls out-perform boys they should have no problem getting in, it's entirely their decision.


Advertisement